When public prevarication is not only condoned but applauded, a worrisome precedent is set. Here, Bush did not in fact withdraw the nomination because of his reluctance to divulge Miers work for him. He withdrew it because she was unlikely to be confirmed and the debate was hurting him politically. Bush's untruthful explanation can only hurt his credibility and his reputation for being a straight-shooter.

I love the 'spin' the Democrats and the media are now attempting to put on the Miers withdrawal.

This time, no one can blame the liberal media. And what made the right's revolt all the more remarkable was that its opinion-mongering wing didn't simply stand in polite opposition to Miers. Its troops hit the trenches, attacked Miers as unqualified, ripped President Bush for cronyism and in some cases raised money to defeat the nomination.

Did anyone ever notice some of the things that a few, prominent liberals and far, left-wing groups were saying during this 'avalanche' of conservative criticism?

"Miers does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the critical swing vote that protected women's reproductive health and freedom." -- Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

"We are concerned about the nomination of Harriet Miers and we demand she answer questions regarding her views of fundamental reproductive and privacy rights. We expect Miers to make clear her views on reproductive rights during the hearing process, and the Senate should not confirm a nominee who is not willing to do so." -- Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood.

"I continue to think if she were a nominee for district court, I would probably vote for her...Whether I would vote for her for the court of appeals or certainly for the Supreme Court remains an open question with regard to her qualifications." -- Senator Russ Feingold (D) Wisconsin

"Her selection to replace O'Connor will mark a further shift to the right in the political composition of the court, above all on such critical issues as the deregulation of business, the weakening of anti-discrimination statutes, the curtailment of civil liberties, the expansion of the police powers of the state, and the upholding of the powers of the presidency against constitutional challenges." -- Patrick Martin, Bush picks right-wing crony for Supreme Court, World Socialist Web Site

"I'm like most every other American, including the ones in Washington. We know almost nothing about her. And we have a lot of questions to be answered before she gets a lifetime appointment...You know, she's a person who's very much below the radar screen as the president's legal counsel. But there's a lot of questions...Well, I don't think she probably is an ideologue. I think she's probably a pretty smart lawyer, but that doesn't mean she ought to be on the Supreme Court. I think we ought to know whether she's going to defend Americans, whether she's going to defend all Americans..." -- Democratic Committee Chair Dr. Howard Dean on Hardball

It would appear that conservatives weren't the ONLY ones questioning Miers' credentials. However, that wasn't THE story.

[You'll have to imagine the smooth talking reporter...]

"THE" story is how far right-wing conservatives, who have co-opted the Republican Party, were not in 'lock-step' support of President Bush. In apparent agreement with this sentiment, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said: "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues. In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right-wing base." In his own, obviously uniquely drafted opinion, Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way stated: "Ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court to the right that they pounded their own president's nominee into submission and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials." In a final note of left-wing, independent, non-lock-step thinking, Senator Schumer conveyed the following message to President Bush: "When we do it again, the president should do it right: slowly, deliberately, carefully, with real consultation and real consensus...If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing, on judicial nominations or anything else, it could only spell trouble for his presidency and for America..."

Such a schism in Republican ranks is the first public appearance of Bush's base being at odds with one of his decisions. The President, was already weakened in the polls as a result of several factors: investigations and potential indictments as a result of possible criminal actions of senior staff members Rove and Libby; losing a major supporter of his agenda in the House with Tom 'the Hammer' Delay's criminal indictment; steadily rising, high oil prices that even former oil men in the White House don't seem to be able to stop; poor responses to Katrina and Rita as a result of the appointment of yet another of the President's cronies, Brown; and continued violence in Iraq - a war which the American people were duped into by a lying President Bush who misled the people into thinking it would be a quick war, with few casualities, and lied to the world by saying there were WMD's, which were never found, and he never would have been able to stand at that podium and lie if he hadn't stolen the election from Al Gore in 2000 through....

I'm sorry, our producer just reminded us that the story we were supposed to be objectively analyzing is the Miers nomination and how the conservatives were solely responsible for perceiving that their President may have misled or lied to them about Miers when he said "Trust Me" as regards her judicial philosophy, even though he was obviously lying when he said he hadn't spoken to her about her feelings on abortion, because if he hadn't, how would he know her philosophy - so it was like when he lied and misled us into war. So, backing away from our non-partisan analysis regarding what led to President Bush's ill-advised nomination of such a lovely person, someone supported by Democrats...

As they said on one of the cable news shows this afternoon, there is now a new term in the lexicon. To be "Borked" means to be unscrupulously torpedoed by opponents. To be "Miered" means to be unscrupulously torpedoed by allies.

Uh, what was that about "objective" reporting? Oh, I forgot. The media publicly abandoned objective reporting decades ago. They now feel their role is to "shape public opinion." I wonder what "shape" they seem to be going for with such unbiased analysis?

It seems to me that there were two sets of people objecting on the right side of the aisle. Once didn't like her because she wasn't "conservative enough", meaning they weren't sure she'd vote the way they wanted. I don't think this is how judges should be chosen, especially for the Supreme Court. That's more of an Anti-Borking.

The other didn't think that she was very qualified, or wasn't convinced that she would act independantly of this White House. I think that's perfectly valid, and I don't see that as anything like Borking.

Cornellian: She would have gotten a vote, if she wasn't pulled. The hearnings had been scheduled for next month. If the White House pulls her before the vote, that isn't the Senate's fault. Red herring.

I agree. If anything, though, the move strengthens the ability of Democrats to attack Bush's next nomination on the basis of withheld documents. It'll be harder for Bush to cry foul, when he so obviously turned it into a game himself for his own political benefit.

"Miered" means to be unscrupulously torpedoed by allies? Darn, I thought I was the first with a definition. Mine is "to be Borked by false friends" but "Miered means to be unscrupulously torpedoed by allies" works.

In what way was Miers "unscrupulously" anything? Did anybody lie about her views, as Ted Kennedy did about Bork? Did anybody massively distort her views so that she was accused of personally supporting things she obviously didn't support, as Ted Kennedy did about Bork?

Did people falsely accuse of her of ethical or legal wrongdoing? Smear her with a scandal via guilt by association?

There were two main arguments employed against Miers by her "allies."

1) Religious conservatives questioned whether she would rule the 'right' way on abortion.
2) Ideological conservatives questioned her qualifications, in terms of whether she had a judicial philosophy or a view of the constitution.

One can disagree about the weight to give either of these factors, but neither one was false or misleading. What was unscrupulous about pointing them out?

Kudos for the post. Bork was "Borked," by which I mean that he was unscupulously attacked and misrepresented in order to kill his nomination. See Ted Kennedy's flatulance on the topic. (As Buckley noted at the time, Kennedy should neither drive nor orate when drunk.)

What was said about Mier's that was untrue? Now, some of the commentary was nasty. I was particulalry p---ed-off that some people dismissed her for having attended a "third-rate" law school. This is snobbery, nothing else. (I didn't go to law school, but I wonder how many regular readers of this blog studies elsewhere than Harvardyalevirginiachicagostanford Law.) But this is a far cry from the Nazi that Bork became for a few weeks in 1987.

Texas Gov. Bush, Ben Barnes, National Guard, not-for bid contracts, "... Larry Littwin -- the controversial former lottery director under Miers -- had been released from a gag order, freeing him to appear at the confirmation hearings to give "potentially explosive" testimony damaging both to Bush and Miers."